justice sotomayor: no.laughter] i didn't even know what one was, so how could you dream about something you didn't know? all of you are far ahead of me. you are kids and you know what a supreme court justice is. i didn't. that is why reading is so important, because it helps you dream about things you wouldn't know about. so i never imagined it. then by the time i grew up and i started to learn about the court and how important it was and the work it did, i began to learn that it is really, really, not just hard to get on the supreme court, but there are not that many spots. [laughter] justice sotomayor: you know, there are nine justices. we have a job for life, and in your lifetime, if the court changes more than once, that is a lot. it is really hard to get on the supreme court. in the entire history of the united dates, i am the 111th supreme court justice. [cheers and applause] [laughter] justice sotomayor: no, i never did imagine and i didn't think it was possible. and i never imagined it was real unti

sotomayor: -- the short form. general francisco: right, your honor. and under my friend's on the other side's position, you are effectively empowering any group in the country to knock off any question on the census if they simply get together and boycott it. there are many people in this country who might find the sex question objectionable because it limits individuals to a binary choice. if a large number of people got together in one state and said we're going to boycott the census -- justice sotomayor: general -- general francisco: -- as long as you include -- justice sotomayor: general -- general francisco: -- that sex question you are effectively empowering -- justice sotomayor: general, are == general francisco: -- to knock that off -- justice sotomayor: -- suggesting -- chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: are you suggesting that hispanics are boycotting the census, that -- general francisco: not -- justice sotomayor: are you suggesting they don't have, whether it is rational or no

justice sotomayor: dr. abowd's testimony, or at least the letter, somewhere i read, that they controlled for -- for all of the other reasons that justice gorsuch was mentioning as reasons why people would not complete? ms. underwood: well, they certainly controlled for the length of the form. justice breyer: well, not just that. on page 110 of the joint appendix, it says whether the response, it says in comparable rates for other demographic sex, birth date age, race, ethnicity. , so i thought that that was an effort to control for the things that justice alito -- mentioned in so far as their relevance. ms. underwood: it was. the only limitation on it was that they had to deal with data that already existed. dr. abowd wanted to do a random controlled test of this question and wasn't permitted to do so. justice alito: but that is a different issue, isn't it, what justice breyer mentioned? justice gorsuch: it's totally different, yeah. justice alito: it's the decline in the response rate based on those variab

justice sotomayor: all right. but -- but i'm -- i'm just not quite sure why that's more compelling for you. mr. stewart: i -- i -- justice sotomayor: you're defending it in a way that suggests that i'm missing something. mr. stewart: i wouldn't say that it's more compelling, but i would say that the government has an independent interest int- justice sotomayor: but that falls -- that falls prey to what justice alito said, which is now the government is moving with freedom of speech and the idea that morals can and should change. mr. stewart: well, we -- i mean, we do have -- in a traditional subsidy program, for instance, if the government was handing out grants for aspiring artists, grants to help them -- them create art, the government obviously couldn't prohibit artists from creating vulgar, profane art, art that a substantial segment of the population would find offensive, but it might still have an interest in encouraging the creation of art that would be ccessible and welcome to all segments of the community

behind-the-scenes for the sotomayor book. replay much of a here. -- it here. there is a justice who really is the opposite in so many ways. her background is foreground. his background he wants to keep back there. she is so proud of her latina heritage. she wants to speak out. the section you are reading from is a 2014 dissent that she s in an affirmative action case where she talks about the need for affirmative action program needed in higher education. she refers to the putdowns that eople of color still feel. she writes this very passionate dissent. he is so put off by it that not only does he sign the majority opinion by anthony kennedy ruling gainst this affirmative action policy action in michigan, but he writes separately, a separate concurrence to admonish just a sotomayor for, in essence, airing the dirty laundry that went on behind the scenes. he strikes back at her for suggesting that maybe he does not get it, so to speak. brian: it seems to be central to your book, this whole subject. have justices always spoken

james: let me reiterate the comments of justice sotomayor. the decision by the secretary was a solution in search of a problem, and there is no problem. it is critically important that we get the count right and not do anything to undermine new york state or any other state that has a significant number of immigrants. particularly a large hispanic community. reporter: can you tell us those figures again? reporter: [inaudible] ms. james: the question is this. the issue before the court is the enumeration clause and the administrative procedure act and whether or not this administration, the secretary was in violation of the administrative procedure act and the enumeration clause. based on the previous decision to put this question on the census form, he acted arbitrarily because all of the data and evidence, all of the reports, even his own staff indicated this citizenship question would undermine the count. we are concerned about undermining that count. two, there was no basis for adding this question. when doj, department of justice, wanted

paul: got 5 words out before sotomayor, justice sotomayor jumped on him. >> what the main thing hereral college, representatives in congress, electoral college never came up in the oral arguments, the politics is overwhelming here, the support was not going to touch the subject. that's why democrats and liberals want these people counted in this way. >> arizona and texas will be hurt just as much as california, so -- paul: all right, thank you, kim jong un meets with russian president vladimir putin as talks between the u.s. and north korea faulted. why secretary mike pompeo call it is road ahead bumpy >> break news out of california where we are getting reports that a synagogue shooting in san diego county. according to the san diego sheriff's department out there they are tweeting that the shooting happened at the pawei synagogue, suburb of san diego, the sheriff's department saying that a man has been detained for questioning in connection with a shooting incident at the shabad synagogue, san diego sheriff's office deputies were call today shibad just before 11:30 this morning. lo

representante de justic justiciadijo que el secretario de comercio actÚa buo bien su magistra la magistrada sotomayortodos los secretarios de comercio han recomendado que nos incluye la pregunta organizaciones dey si ocho estados y 15 ciudades demandaron al gobierno diciendo que su plan busca hacer invisible a los ciudadanos que son indocumentados y no quieren exponerse. >>> en junio el gobierno comenzarÁ el primer los formularios para el prÓximo censo. >>> hay una clara divisiÓn acerca de incluir uno esa pregunta la fiscal general de nueva y k yorky un abogado de la uniÓn americana hablaron con la prensa tras explicar los argumentos del caso dicen que el conteo se verÍa afectadoen comunidades migrantes y tambiÉn representaciÓn de su comunidad es una oportunidad de empleo que se abre cada 10 aÑos . >>> las oficinas ya estÁn contratando en la regiÓn. >>> el censo del 2020 estÁ a la vuelta de la esquina se requiere la contrataciÓn de cientos de personas. >>> se requiere arrebatamiento. el administrador trabajarÁ con un equipo. >>> el censo abrirÁ 26 oficinas en california busca personal bilingÜe, mayor

. >> let me reiterate the comments by justice sotomayor. solution by the secretary was a solution in search of a problem. questions. >> can you go through those figures again? >> the question is this, the issue before the court is the enumeration clause and administrative procedure act and whether this administration's secretariat was in violation of the administrative procedure act and the enumeration clause. based on his arbitrary and capricious decision to put this question on the census form, he acted arbitrarily. all of the data, evidence, reports, even his staff indicated this question would undermine the count. we are concerned about undermining that count. there was no basis for adding this question. when doj, department of justice wanted to meet with them to discuss the impact on the voting rights act, he refused to meet. we believe, we argued today that any citizenship question would clearly undermine the state of new york and other states that have a significant amount of immigrants in hispanic communities. >> why don't you encou

trump y ro lo clave es el papel del jefe el juez john veremos como t toma el argumento de la jueza sotomayorere de la a i admad administracion >> es que la jueza interrumpio d desde el minuto 2 hasta que ss a acabo la audiencia porque dijo q que abestaban adumndiciendo ques jueces no sabemos si seran un a dato politico del ptrresident>> un dato simple de analizar obvite agregar esta pregunt va a bajar el numero de pnersona que van a contar esperamos que u una persona como john que tiene la responsabilidad de ver ambos lados vote a favor de los 4 li e liberale >> ciudadania se vera si se queda o se va, en ese caso serian 6.5 l mlillones de pnaersonas que no contarian y le quitaria poder a los inmigrantes regesa es toda a informacion al respecto, regreso con ustedes al est., muchas gr l explicacion qu, y vamos a otra r grupo de migrantes que iban desde latinoamerica a estados unidos se vieron frustrados en chiapas en mexico agentes de m muchas gracias arresta ciecie ciecie cientos de mujeres y ÑniÑos qu v viajaban >> muchos eran ÑoniÑos que abesa con sus padres descansando eln las sombras cuan

justice sotomayor t appeared to be he had a solution in search of a problem. then on the other side of the bench, the more conservative side, you had chief justice roberts saying to new york solicitor general barbara underwood -- >> woodruff: who is a critic, one of the many critics. >> they had sued the government, of said, well, you know, the census asks a louestions. it asks your age, your sex, your marital status. why not citizenship? and general underwood responded, but for those questions, there is no evidence that they result in an undercount, and there is ample evidence that the citizenship question will result in an undercount. >> woodruff: go ahead. >> i was also going to add justes gorsuch andavanaugh also pressed her. they noted that the united nations recommends that countries clude a citizenship question and that there are many english-speaking countries that have citizenship questions, and she said, while that informatio might be use some countries, those countries may not have our constitution, which has as the enumeration clause the principle

staff indicated that this a citizenship question would undermine the cow supreme court justice sonia sotomayor said secretary ross seaich of status were previously on the senses but were dropped decades ago this question on the census, it's going to cause 6 and a half million people not to respond they're just when a van 3 federal judges all ruled to stop the trump administration from adding the question. a lawyer for the us house of representatives told the justices that the constitution is clear. >>that the point of the us census is to get a total count of the number of people in the united states, not a count of the number of citizens, but the court's conservative justices and white house deputy press secretary hogan gidley said getting citizenship qaeda may be worth the tradeoff comistountry. i ergn nation. we do we have that right and earlier this month president trump tweeted that without the all important citizenship question. >>the report would be meaningless and a waste of billions of dollars in washington, alexander lee mount. francisco port commissioners are deciding whether to appr

now, so i vote for sotomayor and kagan, get the crap beat out of me at home but that's ok. i thought that's what should be. i'm trying to do it the way it used to be. senator thurmond voted for justice ginsburg. not because he agreed with her, because he thought she was a qualified person. how could you say she's not? senator hollings, the longest-serving junior senator in the history of the country, and class you are watching. he voted for justice scalia convinceyou will never me he agreed with justice scalia, but he was highly qualified. i think one got 96 votes and one got 97. what happened? a complete interior ration of the confirmation process. why is it always our people? now kavanaugh. i don't know why it is always our people but things have changed enough for the better. one person has not mentioned kavanaugh yet, and that is susan collins. of all the people who really mattered, i would put her at the top of the list. senator collins gave an explanation of her vote that is the epitome of what the founders had in mind when it came to advise and consent. it was logica

todo es posible el gobierno dice que la pregunta sobre ciudadanÍa ya se habÍa hecho en otros censos sotomayorstro de estados unidos estÁ cambiando y se espera que para el 2044 los sis vanos represente hemos el 25% de la poblaciÓn total esto significa que el gobierno y el sector privado deben a la tarde a una nueva realidad demogrÁfica los resultados del censo apoyan transacciones publicitarias por mÁs de 90.000.000.000 $. un censo incompletode miles de empleos y miles de millones de dÓlares en el paÍs. >>organizaciones quenden los derechos de los inmigrantes emitieron una alerta para que los extranjeros no viajen a la florida. Éstas legislaciones exigen a la policÍa que coopere con el servicio de inmigraciÓn. la polÉmica advertencia la hace la uniÓn americana segÚn sus pronÓsticos de convertirse en ley el controversial proyecto todo extranjero sin importar su estatus migratorio podrÍa ser vÍctima de perfil racial por eso aconseja no viajar si se aprueba la prohibiciÓn de ciudades santuario actualmente la policÍa de la florida no comparte informaciÓn de los extranjeros que arresta pero si esto

staff indicated that this a citizenship question would undermine the cow supreme court justice sonia sotomayor said secretary ross seaich of status were previously on the senses but were dropped decades ago this question on

justices kagan and sotomayor have explicitly said they think wrongly was heller decided, but given the opportunity, they would repeal it. do you think this would be something that would be , or frequently go by the wayside? adam: it is very hard to say what is going to happen in the short term. i don't think it will be overturned. you never know what happens with additional appointments. decision, and-4 there was a subsequent decision in 2010 that also reaffirmed it, 5-4. so in a kind of judicial appointment might change that. i don't think democrats really have a big, a lot to gain by pushing for nominees that would be hostile to the right to bear arms, especially because of those decisions were 5-4, republicans in the senate and gun rights supporters on the democratic side will be more unlikely to support nominees that could change that both from 5-4 best change that vote from 5-4. i am hopeful that this is the kind of decision but helps american politics move forward and thus will be accepted by both sides of the issue. >> earlier today there was a panel on the norco drug wars. part

justice sotomayor saying if the solution is sort of a justice kagan said you cannot read this withouthundreds gathered to protest the plan seemingly unaware that it is illegal for the census bureau to disclose or publish any private information that identifies any individuals. more businesses. >> well, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned that if the data is out there it could pose a risk to you.we've seen administrations that in picking people up in sensitive places like courthouses, schools, going to the office. >> they say many people may not participate in the census and it determines a number of electoral votes, congressman and assistance anyone state receives. expect a decision in the month of june. back to you.lou: thank you very much, doug mckelway from the supreme court. join us tonight former regal -- megan white house -- new york post columnist, fox business contributor, michael goodwin. great to have you here. let's turn to first the issue of citizenship as congressman jordan said, only democrats in washington seem opposed to the idea that the governm

justices kagan and sotomayor have explicitly said they think that heller is wrong, they sided with the opportunity to overturn it. do you think that is still in flux? butconstitutional law is, do see that as something that adam: it is very hard to say what is going to happen in the short term. i don't think it will be overturned. you never know what happens with judicial appointments. heller was a 5-4 decision. a subsequent decision in 2010 that said the second amendment applied equally to the local and state governments. that case was also 5-4. any type of judicial appointment may change that. i don't think the democrats have a big, a lot to gain by pushing for nominees that will be hostile to the right to bear arms. i think republicans in the senate and gun rights supporters on the democratic side are going to be very unlikely to support nominees that could change that vote from 5-4. i'm hopeful that in the long run, this is the kind of decision that is seen as something that helps american politics move forward and will be accepted by both sides of the issue. today, there was a pane

were angry today and they pounced on the government for its arguments, particularly justice sonio sotomayorce kagen and they didn't see any justification, proper justification for adding the question. they said they think it will hurt turnout and the administration hadn't done this -- the proper way. and of course it goes to the heart of political representation, this question. because the census, the data that is derived from the census goes to the allocation of congressional seats, millions of dollars of federal funds and that is what is at play here. the group of states who brought this said, look, it is going to hurt political representation, particularly for minorities. so it is a big test for this newly constituted conservative majority on the supreme court, brooke. >> we'll be watching for us. ariana devogue, thank you so much. >>> elizabeth warren's declaration that the house should start impeachment hearings against president trump has put the massachusetts senator right there in the spotlight and enter 2020 rivals squarely in the hot seat and last night in the town hall several ca

justice sotomayor calling it a solution in search of a problem, but justice brett kavanaugh noting the united nations recommendations the question, one common in other questions. >> the accurate data you'll get t that there f might be a very small, small number of people who refuse to respond. >> my community is severely affected by the lack of resources and if this question does deter people, i c only see my community falling apart. >> reporter: today the court seemed poised to let the question remain the census. their decision expected by late june. pat, there is a rush to hand downdehat court sion. that's because the government needs ame time to prince the census forms for next year's count. >> thank you, blayne. >>> president trump will be a guest of the queen of england in june. buckingham palace says the president will attend a state dinner with queen elizabeth and about 100 other people. mr. trump had tea with thest qun lauly while in britain for a meeting with the prime minister. this time he and the first lady will stay at o of the queen's palaces. the early je visit will also

a former law clerk for sonia sotomayor. good morning.issa, does the president's team have any legitimate points to hold up in court? is this attempt political? the president says the law is 100% on his side. >> the law is ambiguous here. the6103, the congress can request an audit information from the irs. not requesting it from the president. it is not if the president has to turn it over, but the irs and steve mnuchin. this is setting up a conflict and if steve mnuchin is a certify ve servant of the people or of the president. >> danny, this is the only president since richard nixon who has not released his returns. they are willing to die on. that is a direct quote. what does this tell you? >> you remember president nixon said the people need to know if their president is a crook. well, i'm not a crook. but he ended up owing half a million when he was eventually audited. it is an interesting tradition. it is not required. the president is simply not going to do it. he is really likely relying on advice from tax attorneys telling him do

justice sotomayor saying this is solution in search of a problem.d the record without sensing this need is con tried one. hundreds of immigrants protesters gathered outside to protest the plan, seeming unaware it is illegal for the census bureau to disclose or pun like any private information that identifies any individual or businesses. >> well, you don't have to be conspiracy theorist to be concerned that if that date is out there, it could pose a risk to you. we've seen an administration is picking people up in sensitive places like courthouses, schools, going to the doctor's office. reporter: both sides in this debate acknowledge that if the question is included in the census, as many as 6.5 million people may not participate in the census. that translates into probable losses for democrats because the census determineses the number of electoral votes that every state has the number of congressional representatives and how federal fund are allocated. we do expect a decision sometime in the month of june. melissa, back to you. melissa: doug mckel

it's controversial partly because as the justice sonia sotomayor said "there is no doubt that people will respond less because of the census. that has been proven in study after study." the people who respond less to that question are noncitizens. when people respond less, it skews things like congressional representation and funding for the next decade. the question is this. is suppressing that response from immigrants the very reason that commerce secretary bill wur loss claimed that the department of justice asked him to include the question, but as "the washington post" reports, e-mails and depositions showed ross discussed the issues urging a crack down on undocumented immigrants. some showed that he initiated contact with the justice department officials, not the other way around. for some reason, chief justice john roberts and other justices seemed to move past why three federal district judges had banned the trump commerce department from adding the question. it seems like a shocking and cynical justification to keep it. robbers told new york solicitor general barbara underwo

sonia sotomayor pushed back hard. tensions are running hot and it's no wonder why.ld impact americans for over a decade. undercou undercounting, redistricting by design while depriving democratic districts of millions in funding. whatever the court decides, we know this proposed change was born not out of principle but to gain partisan advantage. that's your reality check. >> it definitely has consequences. very big consequences that will last a long time. john avlon, thank you very much. >>> we have a cnn exclusive. an american businessman opens up to us about losing his two children in the easter sunday bombings in sri lanka. he said he tried in vain to save their lives. nick paton walsh had the exclusive interview >> when the bomb went off it's hard to describe. it's like a wave coming through >> the pressure. >> the pressure. my children were so nice. they went to the buffet before me and got food for me and filled up my plate. i wanted a little bit more to drink. i was going to get it. my daughter said, no, i'll get it. the bomb went off. they were running towa

justice son ma sotomayor, the only hispanic member calling it a solution in search of a problem. brett kavanaugh noting the united nations recommends the citizenship question, one common in other countries. how many people have told you if this question is on the census they won't fill it out. >> dozens of people have been organization. my >> the accurate data you'll get from everybody else who does answer is worth the fact that there might be a very small, small number of people wo refuse to respond. >> if this does deter people, i can only see my community falling apart. >> reporter: the court seemed poised to let the question remain on the scensus. nbc news washington rchlts pe. >>> pete williams was also in e urcot. >> we're going to put you on the spot. you were there.en what's your sse of where the court is leaning or thinking of going with this decision? >> well, i agree wit blayne. the majority of the cot, the five conservatives, will say that this was not an abuse of dis kr discretion. when they asked this to be added to the census, did he exceed his powers? the opponent

paul: the solicitor general got about five words out before justice sotomayor jumped on him. >> are rightthe main thing here is, as you said, electoral college, representatives in congress, the word electoral college never came up in the oral arguments. the politics are just overwhelming here, but the court was not going to touch that summit. that's why the democrats and the liberals want these people counted in this way. >> supposedly. arizona and texas want to be heard just as much as california. paul: all right. thank you. still ahead, kim jong un meets with russian president vladimir putin as talks between the u.s. and north korea fall through. why secretary of state mike poll pompeo calls the road ahead -we bought a house in a neighborhood with a lot of other young couples. then we noticed something...strange. oh, could you, uh, make me a burger? -poof -- you're a burger. [ laughter ] -everyone acts like their parents. -you have a tattoo. -yes. -fun. do you not work? -so, what kind of mower you got, seth? -i don't know. some kid comes over. we pay him to do it. -but it's not all bad.

paul: the solicitor general got about five words out before justice sotomayor jumped on him. >> are rightoral college, representatives in congress, the word electoral college never came up in the oral arguments. the politics are just overwhelming here, but the court was not going to touch that summit. that's why the democrats and the liberals want these people counted in this way. >> supposedly. arizona and texas want to be heard just as much as california. paul: all right. thank you. still ahead, kim jong un meets with russian president vladimir putin as talks between the u.s. and north korea fall through. why secretary of state mike poll pompeo calls the road ahead bumpy. ♪ ♪ oh, yeah, that's gonna be a good one. ♪ (playing) did you know that nationwide has customized small business insurance? huh-uh. maybe that's a song. yeah, maybe. (peyton) did you know nationwide is america's #1 provider of pet insurance, farms, and ranches? now that's a song. yeah, maybe. oh, that's gold right there. did you know that nationwide has an interactive retirement planner? (music stops) are we there yet?

along, we in the media with so much attention on these oral arguments, trying to read you or justice sotomayor for the chief, what questions you mightask . are we putting too much stock in oral arguments? >> yes, much . i mean, once we read the case, people start writing briefs. i don't know either paul briefs. but regardless, you have a petitioner was blue and the respondents read and there are about 60 pages each and a yellow one of about 30 pages from the petitioner and the government follow a great briefs, governments always pray and then you can file one, amicus curiae, light green for the petitioner, dark green for the respondent and usually there about 10 to 20. there could be 100. hundreds pretty tough, but i'll read all those briefs. i grant you that if there's 30 or 40 briefs, i begin to see if it's repetitive which it is. and i'll look through but i'll look through both and then i get into my law clerk, the h2 presets, item 12 sets in oral argument. it's usually 12 and they'll write a memo and i'll read the memo and will discuss it and so all that's happened before the oral argument

deciding these cases, we think put so much attention on the oral arguments, trying to review or justice sotomayor are the chief by questions you might ask. are we putting too much stock in oral arguments? justice breyer: yes. much. grant a case,e people start writing briefs. i don't know why they are called briefs. but regardless, you have a petitioner and the respondent and there are 60 pages each and a yellow one, about 30 pages for the petitioner and the government might follow, gray, the government is always gray and you could file one. amicus curiae i of light green for the respondent and usually, there are 10 to 20. there could be 100. it is pretty tough. i will read all those briefs. i grant you, if there are 30 or 40 mica's briefs, i might see if it is repetitive, which it is. look through. i give them to my law clerk, they do three sets, i do 12 sets in an oriole -- oral argument. they will write a memo and i will read their memo and we will hasuss it and all that happened before the oral argument. so the oral argument is for us to ask questions. it is very hard for the lawyers. for the

, weding these in the media put so much attention on the arguments, trying to read you or just a sotomayor or the chief by questions you might ask. are we putting too much thought in our arguments? >> yes. much. once we grant a case, people start writing briefs. i do not know why they are called briefs but regardless you and theetitioner respondent is red and they are 60 pages each and a yellow one of 30 pages of a petition. the government is always great. light green for the petitioner, dark green for the respondent and you see there are 10-20. there could be 100, 100 is pretty tough. i grant you if there are 30 or 40, i might begin to see if it is repetitive, which it is. i give them to my law clerk. they do three sets, i do 12 sets. they write a memo and i read it andemo and we discuss all of that has happened before the oral argument. us toal argument is for ask questions and it is hard for they are notecause sure what it is going to be and one judge starts and the other is frowning and it is very hard. what is a good question? a good question is i do not know the answer when i ask it

justice sotomayor said, "it seems like he thought of something.enship question. this is a solution in search of a problem. i got to find a problem that fits with what i want to do." a number of the more conservative justices noted that the citizenship question has been included on various census forms nearly uniformly between 1820 and 1950, and in a more limited way since then. justice kavanaugh, noting that the statute passed by congress gives the commerce secretary in norma's discretion in putting together their census forms, asked why if congress objects it hasn't already outlawed the question. "why doesn't congress prohibit the asking of a citizen who question in the same way that congress has explicitly provided that no one can be compiled to provide religious information"? opponents bring it back to the issue of immigration and claim that the administration's sole progress in asking about citizenship is to silence people in the u.s. illegally. the administration says the president's priorities are both legal and fair. >> we want to know who

justice sotomayor: could you please tell me how you're defi "

leading off coverage, joined by my a wiley, former prosecutor, and melissa murray, clerk to judge sotomayor, and john flannery. good to see each of you. john out of washington, d.c. where so much news went down today. your view of what it means that we now know mueller was outlining the evidence for consideration, not letting barr, passing it off to barr. >> i think he wrapped himself around the axle, but was faithful to by the book personality and character. he felt constrained by the former rulings about indicting a president, sitting president. he said you can collect information. then he went on to say something else interesting, if he felt he said that these were crimes, he would have no way to answer as he would in trial. i think he decided having locked himself into this path that the only way to deal with it would be as other special prosecutors have done, draw a pathway to the congress. i think if you take his second section -- >> if barr had taken the first letter, submitted it to court, what would a judge make of it? how misleading was it? >> oh, it was totally misleading. in fac

in the media, i think, put so much attention on the oral arguments, trying to read you or justice sotomayor or the chief by questions you might ask. are we putting too much stock in the oral arguments? justice breyer: yes. [laughter] much, much. i mean, once we grant a case, people start writing briefs. i don't know why they're called briefs. ut regardless, you have a pear is in blue and the respondent is red, and they're about 60 pages each and a yellow one of about 30 pages from the petitioner, and the government might follow, gray brief, government is always gray. .nd then you can file one light green for the pear, dark green for the respondent, and usually they're about 10 to 20. there could be 100. 100 is pretty tough. but i'll read all those briefs. now, i grant you, if there are 30 or 40, i begin to see if it's repetitive, which it is. and i'll look through. but i look through all of them and then give them to my law clerks. they each do three, and i do 12. an oral argument period is usually for 12, and they'll write a memo. i'll read their memo, and we'll discuss it. see, all that's

question about why the secretary thought it was a need for this data, and a part of what justice sotomayor was talking about was that it did really seem like the secretary was shopping for a need. goes to the justice department. justice purposes we don't need anything. goes to dhs. dhs' it are eating thing. go back to the justice department, basically he's going to put in a call to the attorney general. finally the justice by the comes back and says okay, , we can gie you what you want. you can't read this record without sensing this need is a contrived one. there have been lots of assistant attorney general in the civil rights division that it never made a plea for kind of data. just the way this would back and forth i guess i'd like an answer to that simple question. >> i have two responses. and then infinite i like to reserve the right of my time for rebuttal. first, i think it is quite common for cabinet cabinet secs to come into office with ideas and inclinations to discuss with their staff and discuss with their colleagues whether there is a legal and policy basis for the inclination

there was a spirited back-and-forth between the san francisco attorney general and sonya sotomayor.his was a circuit court decision plus the constitutionality. there's a lot of cases that are under way right now related to this. >> there are three lower courts that have found the addition of the question to be illegal under something called the administrative procedures act and that sets out the way you're supposed to adopt rules and regulations. there's also a constitutional question, but it really is unlikely that the court will get there, and in fact, the justices seemed extremely untroubled, five of them, the five conservatives seemed completely untroubled by the notion of adding this question, even though it hasn't been asked since 1950, and for the most part has never been asked in this form. it wasn't even asked of women at all until 1920, when they got the vote, and it used to be asked on and off of adult males foreign born, and so they've asked, wanted to add this question, the administration said for help enforcing the voting rights act, but of course the voting rights act

we're joined by melissa murray, professor of law at nyu and former law clerk to justice sonya sotomayornt to bring up a tweet that we've just seen from the president which he says the fake news media is doing everything possible to stir up and anger the polls and as many people as possible. seldom mentioning the fact that the mueller report had as its fact that there was all capitals here, no collusion with russia. the russia hoax is dead. appreciate it, mr. president, that you're watching the show this morning so we want to take this up for you. melissa. >> if there were an answer on my exam, it would get an f. that's not what the mueller report established. it said there was actually lots of evidence of the russians being involved in the election, sweeping infiltration to the election. it said there was insufficient evidence to establish there was coordination with the trump organization. as the guest said before, that's a high bar for a criminal activity. you have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. there wasn't enough evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. not that

that is fun by remarks by one of his colleagues, justice sonia sotomayor as she speaks at george washingtonversity. and columbia university hosts a forum on immigration and how to protect children. >> it is important that our congress and members of congress can come together and focus on passing policy and legislation that is meaningful and impactful is important and that they dismiss petty politics and come together and do their jobs. >> this week on q and a, high school students talk about their week in washington. [speaking simultaneously] you may be a different[speaking simultaneously] >> political party, we are all here because we want to make a different world for ourselves and generations that come after us. are veryung people inspiring and we are passionate about our ideals and saying -- seeing all the delegates i have confidence in us that we could come together to reach a consensus that is educated and reformed. thing i can say especially as i look around me at future leaders and fellow members of this rising generation, that we are all so involved and care so much. incredible th